From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D321B39D; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:56:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E22E30198AA; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.40.205.77] (unknown [10.40.205.77]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C7D19C69; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:56:52 +0000 (UTC) To: Bruce Richardson , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Ray Kinsella , dev@dpdk.org, "techboard@dpdk.org" References: <94df3cc4-de54-72d6-84c6-81bebd209a81@intel.com> <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Kevin Traynor Message-ID: <3d4dfde3-cf8c-8220-18a3-1542567cc3eb@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:56:51 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.47]); Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:56:56 -0000 On 04/04/2019 11:54, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > My thoughts on the matter are: > 1. I think we really need to do work to start hiding more of our data > structures - like what Stephen's latest RFC does. This hiding should reduce > the scope for ABI breaks. > 2. Once done, I think we should commit to having an ABI break only in the > rarest of circumstances, and only with very large justification. I want us > to get to the point where DPDK releases can immediately be picked up by all > linux distros and rolled out because they are ABI compatible. > Maybe techboard should explicitly approve ABI breaks and new APIs (or APIs at transition from experimental to core). Just as a way to get more eyeballs and scrutiny on them. > I'm not sure I like the idea of planned ABI break releases - that strikes > me as a plan where we end up with the same number of ABI breaks as before, > just balled into one release. > > Question for Kevin, Luca and others who look at distro-packaging: is it the > case that each distro will only ship one version of DPDK, or is it possible > that if we have ABI breaks, a distro will provide two copies of DPDK > simultaneously, e.g. a 19.11 ABI version and a 20.11 ABI version? > It would probably double validation and maintenance, so it would require a lot of extra effort. > > So, in short, I'm generally in favour of a zero-tolerance approach for DPDK > ABI breaks, and having ABI breaks as a major event reserved only for > massive rework changes, such as major mbuf changes, or new memory layout or > similar. > > Regards, > /Bruce > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB129A0679 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:56:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2195B1B3DA; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D321B39D; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:56:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E22E30198AA; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.40.205.77] (unknown [10.40.205.77]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C7D19C69; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:56:52 +0000 (UTC) To: Bruce Richardson , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Ray Kinsella , dev@dpdk.org, "techboard@dpdk.org" References: <94df3cc4-de54-72d6-84c6-81bebd209a81@intel.com> <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Kevin Traynor Message-ID: <3d4dfde3-cf8c-8220-18a3-1542567cc3eb@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:56:51 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190404105447.GA1351@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.47]); Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190404165651.C-nnT9As6ObLe_iETBpohF04aE6kJxuqnDudomilJ5U@z> On 04/04/2019 11:54, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > My thoughts on the matter are: > 1. I think we really need to do work to start hiding more of our data > structures - like what Stephen's latest RFC does. This hiding should reduce > the scope for ABI breaks. > 2. Once done, I think we should commit to having an ABI break only in the > rarest of circumstances, and only with very large justification. I want us > to get to the point where DPDK releases can immediately be picked up by all > linux distros and rolled out because they are ABI compatible. > Maybe techboard should explicitly approve ABI breaks and new APIs (or APIs at transition from experimental to core). Just as a way to get more eyeballs and scrutiny on them. > I'm not sure I like the idea of planned ABI break releases - that strikes > me as a plan where we end up with the same number of ABI breaks as before, > just balled into one release. > > Question for Kevin, Luca and others who look at distro-packaging: is it the > case that each distro will only ship one version of DPDK, or is it possible > that if we have ABI breaks, a distro will provide two copies of DPDK > simultaneously, e.g. a 19.11 ABI version and a 20.11 ABI version? > It would probably double validation and maintenance, so it would require a lot of extra effort. > > So, in short, I'm generally in favour of a zero-tolerance approach for DPDK > ABI breaks, and having ABI breaks as a major event reserved only for > massive rework changes, such as major mbuf changes, or new memory layout or > similar. > > Regards, > /Bruce >